↓ Skip to main content

Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000022.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Beynon, Mariska M.G. Leeflang, Steve McDonald, Anne Eisinga, Ruth L Mitchell, Penny Whiting, Julie M Glanville

Abstract

A systematic and extensive search for as many eligible studies as possible is essential in any systematic review. When searching for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in bibliographic databases, it is recommended that terms for disease (target condition) are combined with terms for the diagnostic test (index test). Researchers have developed methodological filters to try to increase the precision of these searches. These consist of text words and database indexing terms and would be added to the target condition and index test searches.Efficiently identifying reports of DTA studies presents challenges because the methods are often not well reported in their titles and abstracts, suitable indexing terms may not be available and relevant indexing terms do not seem to be consistently assigned. A consequence of using search filters to identify records for diagnostic reviews is that relevant studies might be missed, while the number of irrelevant studies that need to be assessed may not be reduced. The current guidance for Cochrane DTA reviews recommends against the addition of a methodological search filter to target condition and index test search, as the only search approach.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Egypt 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 114 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 18%
Researcher 19 15%
Librarian 18 15%
Unspecified 14 11%
Other 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 52%
Unspecified 21 17%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Computer Science 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Other 12 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,148,252
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,554
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,431
of 156,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 156,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.